(2001) 26 Cal.4th 798
Supreme Court of California · Decided August 23, 2001
01. Facts
Lachi Delisa Richards was hired by CH2M Hill, Inc., a nationwide engineering firm, as a civil engineer and began work in 1984 in the water-resources division of its Redding office, where she was, by all accounts, an outstanding and dedicated engineer (26 Cal.4th at p. 802). In late 1987 she began experiencing tremors and difficulty walking; she began using a wheelchair in April 1988 to conserve energy, and in October 1988 was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (id. at p. 802). Over the ensuing years she sought accommodations, and her dispute with the employer over its response to her worsening condition gave rise to her FEHA claims (id. at p. 802).
02. Procedural posture
The Supreme Court reversed, adopting the continuing-violation doctrine for FEHA and remanding for reconsideration of the statute-of-limitations issue (26 Cal.4th at p. 802).
03. Issue
Whether, and how, the continuing-violation doctrine applies to FEHA claims — in particular, when the limitations period begins to run on a course of conduct such as an employer’s ongoing failure to accommodate a worsening disability.
Holding
The continuing-violation doctrine applies to FEHA claims: an employer’s related unlawful acts are treated as a single continuing violation — and the limitations period does not begin to run — so long as the conduct is sufficiently similar and frequent and has not yet acquired a degree of permanence that should put the employee on notice that further informal efforts are futile.
05. Reasoning
The court reasoned that disability accommodation and harassment often unfold as a continuing course of conduct rather than discrete, easily dated events, so a rigid rule keyed to the first adverse act would force employees to sue prematurely and discourage the cooperative, informal resolution the FEHA favors. It therefore adopted a permanence-based test: the limitations clock starts when the employer’s actions take on sufficient permanence that the employee is on notice that further conciliation is futile.
Practice Pointer
Richards is the answer to many FEHA limitations defenses, especially in accommodation and harassment cases: frame the employer’s conduct as a single continuing violation and locate “permanence” as late as the facts allow, so earlier acts remain actionable. Plaintiff’s counsel should develop the timeline to show the conduct was ongoing and similar, and that the employee reasonably continued to seek informal resolution until futility became clear.
06. Open questions
Richards adopted the continuing-violation doctrine but left its “permanence” trigger fact-intensive, and later authority has limited how the doctrine applies to discrete adverse actions (as opposed to ongoing courses of conduct), an area counsel must navigate carefully.
Cite this entry
Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 798.
“Plaintiff Lachi Delisa Richards was hired by CH2M Hill, Inc., a nationwide engineering firm, as a civil engineer and began work in 1984.” — 26 Cal.4th at p. 802
Source: California Official Reports – [insert durable courts.ca.gov / Official Reports link at verification].